At 11:52 AM 01/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>right. But whatever "globalization" may mean, my point was that foreign
>>trade is only a part of the story. It's the part that the orthodox
>>economists emphasize, seeming to want to either not talk about capital
>>mobility or to treat it as a form of foreign trade.
>
>Actually, orthodox economists talk a lot about capital mobility, don't they?
they talk about it, but the almost total emphasis in the press and in
textbooks, is on trade. In fact, all "anti-globalization" moves are
interpreted _totally_ in terms of opposition to "free trade," which in turn
is labeled "protectionism" (even though NC theory itself tells us that when
there are externalities -- as there are, in spades -- interference with
markets can be recommended).
>But what exactly does it explain?
capital mobility, not trade, helps explain the "race to the bottom," as
different countries compete to cut labor costs to attract capital.
>>that's too simple. Didn't the Europeans did a lot of ripping of their own
>>domestic wage-setting institutions (a euphemism for unions &
>>welfare-state institutions?) in order to create the Euro, without U.S.
>>prompting?
>
>Yes. But the Euro-elite's project of unification is largely homegrown. It
>doesn't have much to do with "globalization." The g-word is used
>ideologically to create a sense of an external and irresistible force, no
>more alterable than gravity.
well, I wasn't using the word "globalization" as much as referring to what
other people say.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
